Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production/Archive 1

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production/Archive 1

Clean up, expand

article preamplifier looks good to me, release it? also, i want to make an effort to clean up and expand the sm57 and 58 articles. these are the two articles about the meat and potatoes we are doing here, any help would be amazing. --drmartini 22:06, February 25, 2008 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production/Archive 1

Organization task

Since there are already hundreds of articles (many of which require many jobs) within the scope of this WikiProject, we need to find effective ways to organize and create open task lists (NPOV, cleanup, verification, etc.). I think creating an "advanced project banner" that can be used to categorize articles is probably the best way to achieve this. Mind? --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:07, December 13, 2006 (UTC)

A many jobs? Tell me about it! That's why this project started = D. I've been wanting to develop an advanced project banner (by improving what we already have), but as I'm new to banners and similar tasks, I start with the simple ones we have. If you know how to create it, please continue ! I'll keep reading sophisticated banners, so I'll be ready to use them when you create them (or create them yourself if you do not). Thank you KFP! --Davidkazuhiro 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I love the Beatles project rating scheme, especially the "required" rating inclusion. Is it possible to track articles according to the rating? --Davidkazuhiro 06:24, December 14th, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. At first, I hope to try to do this as part of Esperanza's proposal for the award weekend ending on Wikipedia Day, January 15th. However, some people have once again proposed the entire Esperanza to be removed, so it may not work. It is the intention of the Appreciation of Evening proposal to set aside the time given when the various individuals who have made important and significant contributions to the encyclopedia will be recognized and respected. I believe that, with some effort, this can still be done. My proposal is, by luck, trying to set various WikiProjects and other wikipedia entities to take part in a bigger celebration of its contributors that will take place in January, probably from January 15, 2007. I have created another new subheading for myself ( my weakness, I'm worried) at User talk: Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would really appreciate any indication of the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or helpful in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:14, December 29, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Phantom Power Articles and Project Userbox

I've set it up, restructured some text and added headers, so I deleted it from the to-do list. If you want to file an objection, do it.

p.s.

- what about this as Userbox project? Goldenglove 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job with Phantom Power Goldenglove article! Pretty good looking for Userbox too. Keep up the good contribution! --Davidkazuhiro 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that everything is starting to move on this project! Userbox is great - but the text is hard to read on a black background. Stizz 17:36, February 9, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Goldenglove, I changed your userbox to make it easier to read. Binksternet 05:21, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

src: thinking.is.ed.ac.uk

Please review ratings

Please review my rating of B-rated articles. I have reviewed all our articles on a quality scale as of February 8th. However, I'm a little dissatisfied with my B-rating, either because the article seems to be nominated for GA or it does not seem good enough for B. If you can drop in to the Professional B-Class sound production article and fix any misunderstandings, or nominate articles that could be GA, it would be great! --Davidkazuhiro 14:25, February 9, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

WP: Ads FS

You may be interested in a project that Wikipedia has recently activated: Featured Voice. This is the audio equivalent of Wikipedia: Photos shown and aimed at identifying and highlighting the most valuable audio recordings used in Wikipedia articles and promoting the use of sound on Wikipedia in general. Comments and nominations are accepted on Wikipedia: Superior vote candidate. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

You seem to know

Halo,

I have made what I believe to be a spectrograph film and upload it to Wikipedia; I hope someone here can tell me if the term spectrogram is the actual term used for what I make? You can see it in File: My Songo Spectrogram.ogg - and of course Media Help if you have never played an Ogg/Theora movie before. I just want to make sure Wikipedia remains factual before I make some modifications. Thank you for your time and effort. Triddle 21:42, February 16, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Triddle. What you make there will be called a real-time analyzer, which shows an intensity above the frequency. Spectrograms usually display frequencies over time. That's how it works in practice. According to the Spectrogram article, RTA is a type of spectrograph (see below format). This makes sense, but I have to check it before agreeing. --Davidkazuhiro 22:09, February 16, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for David's information, I added the appropriate movie. Incidentally, the new movie title is now . Triddle 15:04, February 17, 2007 (UTC)

src: lornamcampbell.org

New article

FYI, here is a new article:

• Maximum Shipping Potential - this may have to be quickly deleted, but you may be able to do something with it.
• Mastery of music

Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 22:03, March 2, 2007 (UTC)

I added a tag combination that suggests mastery of Music put in to the mastery of Audio, ie if it has to say something different. The description of the term does not seem to say anything different from mastering Audio. I'm not even sure the term is right, so maybe it should not be merged. The term Music mastering makes me think to master music as a skill. As for Maximum Shipping Potential, I should look into it or let other people who know better decide whether to put a delete label or not. --Davidkazuhiro 04:48, March 3, 2007 (UTC)

I agree that mastery of music must be combined with audio mastery. Combined with Stizz's opinion (see Talk: Music mastering), this makes 3 people think they should be merged. If there are no opposing points of view, let's combine in a day or two. I have also produced the Maximum Shipping Potential so there is such a deadline to fix it - I would rather not just sit around for as long as now. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Articles Spam/A7

I've seen some links in audio mastery (under the "Audio mastery tool"), and almost everything advertises and/or does not assert. I have produced most of them. I might be able to speed them up, but I prefer the experts (you're here on the project) fixing the articles so they can be saved. If indeed they are not well known, they can be removed within a few days.

• JAMin
• Nuendo (marked as fast)
• Pro Tools (affirms notability, but has no reference)
• XO Wave
• Sound Forge

Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 21:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I have removed the speed tag from Nuendo because it is a very well known program in studio technology (the article needs to work). Digidesign's Pro Tools is, in a nutshell, the industry standard and most popular digital audio workstation system in the world, but it should also work. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:26, March 5, 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I have made Nuendo - feel free to delete it if you think it matters. But I would like to see all these articles (and some that I did not list but on audio mastery) including at least least statements. Even just saying it is "industry standard" better than nothing. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 21:51, March 5, 2007 (UTC)

I transfer Nuendo to Steinberg, the company that created the software, for now. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:09, March 9, 2007 (UTC)

I want to say:

• Delete JAMin
• Nuendo (marked as fast) delete
• Pro Tools Yes, their TDM division is an industry standard. Do not quickly delete first.
• XO Wave Like Sound Forge but on the Mac platform. Not a mastery tool that tries to be professional.
• Sound ForgeAlthough a useful program, it was never considered good enough as a mastering level. And though I like it, It should also be deleted. Envinatea 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The mastering page is ready for review by members

Hello Fellows, I just finished merging and revising the Audio Mastering/temp page

First, we need to choose whether to master "audio" or "music". Please enter your name and select it under my name:

1/Evinatea = musik
2/Stizz = Audio
3/Davidkazuhiro = Audio

Secondly, If everyone feels that it would be better to make a search count on notability (Music or Audio mastering) then that's good too.

Third, note that my personal definition no longer exists. So the words have changed, but the definition remains the same. Let's start. Thanks.Evinatea 17:05, March 6, 2007 (UTC)

I do not think I've heard the term "Music Mastering" before. Bob Ludwig says mastering audio on his website; and for what it's worth, Google search will show 6 times more clicks on the phrase "mastering audio" than "mastering music". But I do not really care what you call it, as long as I get paid.-- Stizz 00:06, March 7, 2007 (UTC)

The term "master music" exists and is unheard of; however, because the criteria proposed by you now is, which keyword generates more pages from "Google", then we will retain the title "audio mastery".

If there are objections by other project members, please tell me now.

Another thing, and this is just a suggestion, why not make fun of calling it "master". I know this is a bit vague, but what else needs to be mastered by music and speech? Evinatea 20:21, March 7, 2007 (UTC)

Google is a common means to prove a notation among Wikipedian editors. It does not always work with PSP topics though, since most of the literature on this subject is scientific or in other forms of printing, and is rarely online. If musical mastery is actually a professionally used term, references/quotes will greatly help people (I suspect many) who have never heard of it before.

Also, I would vote against having a degree as "Mastering" because it would also refer to other concepts such as mastering skills. It's too generic. "Audio mastering" is a good title, and better than "Music mastering" because Audio refers to music and speech, let alone anything that makes sound. --Davidkazuhiro 03:16, March 8, 2007 (UTC)

Dear David, I can not disagree with your argument that "mastering" is a vague term. But, the musician who calls my studio, never asks: do you do audio mastery? But, do you really master?

In any case, the problem has been pretty much solved for "mastering audio". So your vote is confirmation. I wish there were more voters, but we were the ones who did the rounds so the burden was on us. This does not mean that new proposals and revised debates can not be reopened, so for now see our new page. I think the definition is elegant and concise. Evinatea 06:03, March 8, 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Since RMS is a generally used audio engineering term, I propose to move or delete this section in the Audio Mastery page, simply because it does not merit its own part and may even help the subject's confusion on mastery. Any vote support or against it? Evinatea 13:19, March 29, 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the merge has run. Good work --Davidkazuhiro 10:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Main Revision to Master Studio in Studio

Guys, I just finished revising Studio # Mastering_studio on the Studio page, complete with more details. It was too messy and unrefined. Feedback will be accepted. Evinatea 06:11, March 8, 2007 (UTC)

Now it's definitely better Goldenglove 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ProTools external links (Potential Spammers)

I cleared external links to other websites claiming to have extensive forums and relevant technical info, but it appears to be for sales. Now, one appears in one of the Pro Tools section (bottom of the Pro Tools system) The entry was re-created by the IP address (206.211.148.67) which appears to be shared by the College's place that has reported the destruction problem (Chapman U.). Anyone please, check? Evinatea 07:37, March 8, 2007 (UTC)

I commented the link because it is broken now --Davidkazuhiro 10:10, April 7, 2007 (UTC)

AKG Acoustics partially rewritten

I rewrite the AkG Acoustics article, I will leave the stub markers although I will receive some feedback. Main changes: add references and footnotes, add company history, sacrifice parts of the article to get NPOV. Feedback received. Goldenglove 16:29, March 30, 2007 (UTC)

This definitely looks a LOT better than ever. I have to give it a thorough and critical reading later - David 12:10, April 7, 2007 (UTC)

TC Electronic

Well, finally I've written it. I know it's not that good, so the feedback and additions are more welcome.

Goldenglove ^{Contribs  · Bicara}

07:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perang Loudness: Penghapusan tautan spam

I have cleared some reference links, helped with definitions (They were badly written) and placed spam templates on the Loudness War page. There's still much to do in terms of how to write and delete links that seem to promote commercial websites. There is:

• 1. The Big Squeeze: Mastering the engineers debating the loudness of the music war (MIX Professional Audio and Music Production Magazine)

• Article 1 December 2005 by Sarah Jones, the full title: "The Big Squeeze: Mastering Engineers of Music Debate's Loudness Wars"
• Note: if it is not a reliable source, MIX online is quoted in some Wikipedia articles (Linkearch for *.mixonline.com)

• 2. Stereophile.com with "Dynamics and Dynamic Range" in StereoPhile.

I feel this link should be removed and the appropriate replacement (if applicable) applies. Let's not forget the mess that was brought on the page mastering Audio. The solution is (for this kind of page) simple, suggest links that: Do not mention the name of the engineer and his website. If you mention the name of an engineer, then he certainly is not a living person. If you mention a website, it should be a non-profit, ie, org, learning institution, or University page. Please, feedback. Jrod2 13:26, May 21, 2007 (UTC)

Nika Aldrich and Bob Katz

User: Jrod2 has said to Talk: Audio_mastering: "Do I believe that the whole world thinks Nika Aldrich and Bob Cats is the last word in mastery? I just found out how incredible how these two engineers have convenient links placed on almost any audio page in WP !! This is a disgrace! Effective next week, I will clean every Cat or Aldrich and I will demand another alternative.Prepare to make people's arguments and play cleaner good sense of smell, so if there is something that smells rotten, the game is over. Good night. "

What do other audio people on Wikipedia say about this? Illuminatedwax 06:13, May 30, 2007 (UTC)

Illuminated coil, welcome to Professional Sound Production WikiProject! Quite a lot, everyone here knows that I hate spam and people who manipulate WP for pure financial gain. Some members have appreciated my instincts and have recognized my talents. I see the BS and usually get rid of it. That's one of my major contributions to WP, and I'm sure Jim Wales will be proud of my commitment (Unlike what you might want to believe).

Therefore, Illuminated Illuminated, do not be afraid of evil. If your favorite engineers (Bob K and N. Aldrich) do not use WP for their personal gain, then there is no reason to kill them. I will only patiently go through every link that refers or directs to a book sold by these 2 engineers, that's all. Call it "audit". Then, I'll just do a simple analysis: Do we need this link? Is this relevant to the subject at hand and Who posted this external link? So, as you can see, I only have the best interests of WP. You once said to me: "You are not Jrod2 cop", you do not have to do it, just join the anti-spam Project, and you'll be one. Doing research to uncover doll and doll fraud by others is my thing. Do you have a problem with it? I will still contribute to articles, like when I clean the "Loudness" and "Opposition" sections of the War of Loudness, remember? I'm sure you'll agree that it's easier to read now and not too difficult to understand as it was before I edited. Have a nice day. Jrod2 11:04, May 30, 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you made some good contributions to War of Loudness, but your contribution is NOT deleting spam. Another editor is also the one who deleted most of the unreliable links. I do not doubt your willingness to help Wikipedia, but I do not think you have a good understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, I think you interrupt frequently to remove what you consider spam, including post spam warnings on editors' talk pages that disagree with you and revert your changes. You should also be aware that who is linking is irrelevant if the link is actually acceptable (except to penalize the user who posted it for COI).

If you are only planning to go through and evaluate the existence of Katz and Aldrich references on Wikipedia, I would think that either you consider them unreliable sources, or you just want to point out the places where their mention is irrelevant to the subject. You say you will "cleanse all Cats or Aldrich" and "alternate requests". It sounds to me like you are planning to remove it from the article because they are an unreliable source; therefore, I think I will get the information and ask the audio community what they think about both sources. Illuminatedwax 13:33, May 30, 2007 (UTC)

Do you always have to say anything? I noticed that about you. This is a distinguishing feature of personality that I've learned to recognize after interacting with dozens of admins ;-) Are you worried about me? As long as you do not become obsessed, okay? In the meantime, I'll do what I do, tag who I'm going to tick (with good reason) and if there's something wrong with my procedure, it should not be your business, but thank you for voicing your own. Jrod2 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Resources and Resources

I have to say that I find it increasingly difficult to write an article about audio production using my field knowledge and then go out to search for published sources to verify my work. The audio world is one of the less published and I think some loyal Wikipedia administrators and "patrol vandalism" sometimes get a little over the top with their cleaning. I always thought that Wikipedia is a place where people's knowledge with internet access can be shared so that others can learn more.

I fully understand and appreciate the Wikipedia policy of references and sources and do not mean to attack them, I just think that if the facts of the article are widely accepted by people who are knowledgeable about it then it does not need to be examined so much. Also, it appears that you should remove dirt on the company to prevent administrators from labeling the page as "flashy ads." Is there anyone else who has the same frustration? --Phil McGowan (user: PhilyG) 05:20, June 12, 2007 (UTC)

Spam/vandalism has long been debated, with User: Jrod2 doing most of the cuts. The consensus among articles seems to relate to engineers and companies alright as long as they are part of a complete list or they are in some way important. Basically, as long as it improves the article in several ways and meets WP: NOTE, you are all good. The only editor I saw recently who disagreed with this was Jrod2, and he may have changed his mind.

Regarding the source, you should be careful about POV slipping. For example, the Loudness War article eventually moved to a large soap box that denounced the mastery method used. To make something NPOV, you need a source. I'm sure the same thing happens in articles that discuss the pros and cons of digital/analog. My suggestion is that you just enter the information you think needs to be put in, and if people think it needs resources, they will mark it. Illuminatedwax 11:31, June 12, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Illuminatedwax! Glad to see you back. Yes, I changed my mind. One can not refuse a good argument to support some reasonable compromise as you give me. Thus, engineers must be "very" well known and recognized by all peers as leaders in the field. I accepted the Grammy (reluctantly) as a compromise to measure the extent of the engineers achievement. Although as one, I do not care about the Grammy in the "master" category for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Now do not forget, as we continue to expand the article and turn it into a guide book, you will most likely see engineers and master labs from all over the world hoping to get their names in it. As a result, spam "frenzy" will continue and we can not have it. One of my major contributions to WP, whether my views are too extreme or not, is to help stop spam and vandalism of Audio master pages. The scale of vandalism can not be understood by new editors, so hopefully they will read this and learn that during their editing in "good faith", they will be fine. Jrod2 15:39, June 12, 2007 (UTC)

Audio Engineer Userbox

Hi everyone, recently I made userbox for our Audio Engineers because I could not find it. Enjoy!

--PM - PhilyG ^talk 06:58, June 19, 2007 (UTC)

I propose this one. Jrod2 15:00, August 16, 2007 (UTC)

Dash Signature has been nominated for deletion

You are welcome to give your opinion in the AfD debate. From scanning this Talk page, I noticed that the editor here also appeared against the question of an adequate source for audio articles. I hope that this WikiProject has some overlap with fields handled by Dash Signature. The company developed a software plugin used in the production of digital audio. EdJohnston 03:55, July 28, 2007 (UTC)

• Comments The Dash Signature article has been updated and is now no less than the FXpansion one, actually much more. Also I point out that Notabiliy states "Eligibility requires objective evidence", just not saying anything about the evidence by the online community (Forum E.G). But if notability will be extended (or is it alredy?) To these sources, "adequate sourcing problems" could be easier in some cases.-- Luigi 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

mengedit "rintisan"

I can use some hints. I'm working on an article on Metasonix. What exactly, defines "stub" articles, and how much info should come out of the definition of "stub"? Please go to the article and let me know if there is anything else I can do to fix it. --Savagebeautysound 01:55, July 30, 2007 (UTC)

Can Someone Take this from my hand

I started an article about Mr.Rupert Neve some time ago. It seems like this will be significant here.

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia templates and conventions, nor are users often. I see them no articles and feel that it should be added.128.189.171.56 06:29, August 16, 2007 (UTC)

I can draw

Hi everyone, if you feel that any article needs a diagram to help things, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I've contributed several pages of dynamic range compression, among others. And let me know if my image also needs to be upgraded. Iain 08:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your last crossover diagram and your previous drawing as well. I will continue to remember your graph skills. Binksternet 15:15, September 21, 2007 (UTC)

SAE link

Hi All, First let me say that I work for SAE Institute competitors. This is probably why I noticed that there are many 'see also' links for SAE. I think it is unnecessary and maybe SPAM. I will not delete it, because I am a bit biased about it. Can someone see the following page:

• Voice operator # See also
• Audio editing # See also
• Professional audio # See also
• Voice recording history # See also
• Sound recording and reproduction # See also

thanks. Iain 05:13, September 22, 2007 (UTC)

I am not working for any higher education institution. I think most SAE links do not advance the topic. I delete the weak. Binksternet 16:10, September 22, 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed SAE in History_of_sound_recording # External_links and the link is dead, leaving the "External Links" section with just one. This link must be excluded and does not refer directly to the subject of the article. This raises the question of keeping the external links part altogether. I think maybe the best thing is not to have it or just use wiki links. Jrod2 10:47, September 23, 2007 (UTC)

Tag talk page

I have tried to add WP: PSP talk page tags to the Jay Pritzker Pavilion for the use of its technology to replicate indoor sounds and List records recorded on the United States National Record List for its various types for recording methods that have been archived as historic. Please tell me why these two additions are contested.-- TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Electronic sound phenomenon

Electronic voice phenomenon article: can use some defines defining digital artifacting, error capture, sound flooring, RFI, etc. because they apply to voice recording. - LuckyLouie 06:50, November 5, 2007 (UTC)

A-weighting ??

The A-weighting article is marked as part of this project. Is that right? I have not been involved in the production of professional sounds, but I have found A-Weighting, and the related B-, C-, and D-Weighting networks in the context of measurements of noise exposure. Is this network also used in sound production? Otherwise I will remove the tagg. Pzavon (talk) 02:51, November 22, 2007 (UTC)

The section that talks about clipping is true. No need to change it. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, February 26, 2008 (UTC)

REAPER DAW

hey, note that the article about REAPER is not marked as part of this project, though in scope (it's music software, and important) - and it can be done with some love. I think the judgments done can help the process. applause! Onesecondglance (talk) 12:18, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

AFA Room matching matching

I have included equalization Matching room, new article, for deletion. For discussion, go to Wikipedia: Articles_for_deletion/Room_matching_equalization. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, May 16, 2008 (UTC)

Superior vote candidates

Hi, I'm wondering if you have time to take a look at Wikipedia: Featured_sound_candidates/When_Johnny_Comes_Marching_Home. It is a matter of balancing what I see as a bad musical performance with whatever historical value the recording does (can not be justified by nominees). Criteria is here. TONY (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to WP scoring scheme: 1.0

As you have heard, we at Wikipedia Editorial Team 1.0 recently made some changes to the rating scale, including the addition of new levels. New description is available in WP: ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are outside the basic Start Class, but which require additional reference or cleaning to meet B-Class standards.
• The criteria for the B-Class have been tightened with the addition of sections, and are now more in line with the stringent standards already used in some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now require more than one person, as described here.

Every WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category in Category: C-Class_articles. If your project chooses not to use a new level, you can easily delete your WikiProject Class-C category and clarify any amendments on your project assessment/discussion page. Bots have found and included C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any questions about the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selection for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thank you for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For Editorial Team 1.0, Ã,§hepBot ( Disable ) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Important discussion about " Should WikiProjects get prior approval from other WikiProjects (Descendants or Related or whatever) to mark overlapped articles with their scope? " open here . We welcome you to participate and provide your valuable opinions. - TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} -, member of WikiProject Board. 14:54, July 8, 2008 (UTC)

The audio mixing scope is too wide and can use sharing to additional articles

I tried expanding the Audio mixing article (currently very bad), but I have a big problem with its scope. Initially, audio mixing included music mixing, direct mixing, post-production (picture-motion) mixing and DJ mixing. Trying to write a succinct article for the four is almost impossible. History, processes, equipment used, although similar, are very different; and it is very difficult to write the correct text for all four categories. The large format console used in mixing music is different from that used in post-production theater, and in direct sound there are often special matrix tables. If this article should be written correctly then it should have a top-level division into three industries (music, live, motion-drawing), which indicates that at first there should be more than one article. I suggest:

• Audio Mixing (for studio music mixing)
• Direct mix
• Motion picture audio stirrer
• (DJ mixing)

Your comments are very welcome. Izhaki (talk) 11:06, August 1, 2008 (UTC)

PS This page could use some archiving - some inactive discussions since 2006.

You indicate your background in suggesting that studio mixing takes its standard name for itself. I, I think "audio mixing" should remain public because it is general.

Several other types of mixing: mixing of radio and television broadcasts, and unattended mixing as happens via automixer in civil conference rooms or courtrooms.

My suggestion would be to make the Audio mixing page short; Does it describe the different types of mixing and offer links for readers to jump to the more specific mixing types that they have in mind. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, August 2, 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense and is fine by me keeping the audio mixing short. Does this mean there should be a new article called Music Mixing? Mixing Studio? How do we call it? Izhaki (talk) 19:48, August 2, 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on the following article title, to link from Audio Mixing article:

• Mixing Studio
• Live Sound Blending
• Mixing Motion Sound
• Mixing DJ

Izhaki (talk) - Undated comments are dated at 14:28, August 14, 2008 (UTC)

Articles tagged for cleanup

Currently, 402 articles are assigned to this project, of which 135, or 33.6%, are marked for cleaning of some types. (Data as of July 14, 2008.) Are you interested to know more? I offer to make a list of things to do on a project or working group level. View User: B. Wolterding/Cleanup List for details. Over 150 projects and workgroups have been subscribed, and adding subscriptions to you is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User: WolterBot/Clear subscription listings | banner = WikiProject Professional sound production}}

If you would like to respond to this canned message, please do so on my user talk page; I am not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for the production of Professional sound

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles to be released on DVD, and is available for free download later this year. Wikipedia: Version 1.0 The Editorial Team has created an automatic article selection for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the selected articles from this project. This is selected from the article tagged with this project talk page, based on the importance and quality assessed. If there is a special article that should be removed, please let us know on Wikipedia talk: Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure on Wikipedia: Release Version Nominations.

List of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, available. This list is updated automatically every hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix an urgent problem in the selected article. The copy team has agreed to help with copy requests, although you should try to fix a simple problem yourself if possible.

We will also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. This version can be recorded on the sub-pages of this project from Users: SelectionBot/0.7. We plan to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to choose a revision before October 20th. At that time, we will use an automated process to identify the version of each article to be released, if no version is manually selected. Thank you! For the Wikipedia Editorial 1.0 team, SelectionBot 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Workgroup Coordinator

Hi! I would like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject work group coordinator, an effort to bring the official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion of possible changes to the A-Class review system, and it may be one of the first things discussed by interested co-ordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project has not officially appointed an editor as a coordinator, but you are someone who regularly handles coordination tasks within the project, please join as well. - Delievered by ( Disable ) on behalf of the WikiProject Coordinator Working Group at 06:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Compact Cassette

I have nominated Compact Cassette for featured article reviews here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the criteria of featured articles. Articles are usually reviewed for two weeks. If the substantial problem is not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the list of the Featured Article Elimination Candidates for the next period, where the editor can declare the "Keep" or "Delete" article seeded status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Stephen 05:23, March 19, 2009 (UTC)

Is there enough article on this subject to justify the outline of a professional sound production?

By the way, here's a relevant discussion about the subject development that might interest you.

Now back to the question...

The Transhumanist 01:26, 31 Juli 2009 (UTC)

Bose halaman produk untuk dihapus

More opinions will be appreciated in AfD: Bose stereo speakers page. All are welcome to consider whether the eight articles covering the Bose Corporation product line should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Featured article candidate/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1

Feel free to comment on Wikipedia: Featured article candidate/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1.-- TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP: CHICAGO/WP: FOUR) 22:55, January 4, 2010 ( UTC)

Logic Pro Issues

Crossposted to Wikipedia: Sudut pandang netral/Noticeboard

AnonIP has added harsh words and is soured very badly to Logic Pro's article ( for example. , this and this). I object to the lack of source and style of language used, but perhaps the editor has a point with respect to the underlying content. I do not know enough about the online audio world to help with the research, but maybe some eyes here can help create something encyclopedic and sourced well.

Of course, if that is not possible, more eyes on the page will survive to protect it from the grudges of the editors. Thank you, fine. Baccyak4HÃ, (Yak!) 17:48, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is sent to every WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 rating system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010 , the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but your project summary table view will change. This upgrade will make many new optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available on the WP 1.0 project homepage. --Ã, Carl (CBM Ã, Â · talk) 03:48, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Propose removal of Euroblock

Euroblock article has been flagged for deletion. I'm not comfortable with this (Google shows lots of hits for euroblocks from suppliers) but lacks the expertise to get involved in this topic. The article is very stubborn, but I think there is an original article there waiting to appear. Maybe someone from this project can experience it? Thank you!

Cje (talk) 13:09, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I am working on it, and remove the PROD label. Still need a reference, and I'm having trouble finding the specs for the connector itself. Maybe someone else will know where to look. - | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:52, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I use Dennis Bohn's Audio Rane Pro Reference to define some terms, and so I remove the "unreferenced" tag. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary. - | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:40, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for jumping over this! --Cje (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

PreSonus Studio One

I've added PreSonus and PreSonus Studio One to the project. Since I work for PreSonus, I would appreciate the people who see the articles and make improvements. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Voice Strengthening System vs. PA System

There seems to be great confusion and very few sources about the definition and the difference between these two words. While working at several concerts in Japan, I began to understand both terms:

PA

• Generic systems designed to cope with the public
  • A common example is at a school or hospital
• Not a robust SR system

SR

• Specifically designed for entertainment shows, concerts.

I can be much more concise with my definition, but I think you feel it. The problem is, the difference between the two is not clear in most articles. One can even conclude that SR is part of the PA after reading the wikipedia article. Maybe so. Any thoughts, opinions, or sources? If we can define this it will help us organize these articles much better. --Davidkazuhiro 18:47, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

I would say that even (mainly?) The general public often wrongly uses the term PA to refer to the SR system. In my experience, the public address system is primarily for making announcements to large numbers of people in large areas (multiple rooms, hallways, buildings, etc.) On the other hand, sound reinforcement systems are mainly sounded in one room, hall or theater (though some systems can also be attached to additional space such as lobby, etc.). Saying that SR system is specially designed for entertainment events will be far away. In this area we will even call the system in the large lecture hall, for example, the SR system. The reason is called SR is because the sound is amplified to be easily heard in the big room. --BenFranske 23:50, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

I found this article today and quite informative: [1]. The author does some pretty good research especially considering the general confusion of public disputes and disagreements among professionals. Whatever our consensus (this project and related article writers) appears, the way the article presents the definitions of both terms needs to be improved. The articles I found that included definitions were: Public address, Sound reinforcement system, and Live sound reproduction. Let me know if you have any ideas on how to solve this problem (discuss it on each article's talk page) Start a discussion on this as a subpage of our project and invite editors to join Create an article on this issue and hope this definition solidifies in the years up?) or find other sources out there to help us. --Davidkazuhiro 05:50, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty easy. Public Address refers to the part of the sound reinforcement system that discusses the public as opposed to eg. monitor system for stage actors for example. So PA is part of SR, if you like this. --Audioholic 20:12, January 17, 2007 (UTC)

That's really good Audioholic. I have never heard anyone say that before. Such a definition will help us to distinguish the definition of ambiguity. I'm specifically reminded of the quote "In concert settings, there are usually two complete PA systems: the" main "system and the" monitor "system." under large PA place system in PA system. Unless someone says more, I encourage you (and me) to begin to clarify this in related articles. (PA system, Voice reinforcement system etc.) Be sure to mention your reasons on certain discussion pages so that other editors can follow your reasons and voice their opinions as well. --Davidkazuhiro 13:57, February 9, 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be late for this party. The difference that was made by HiFi trade magazines many years ago is that the PA system provides a lot of amplification aimed at understandable speech, while the sound reinforcement system is associated with loyalty and is generally used for concerts as opposed to speech. My information may be completely outdated, but it is a distinction that I remember from the early days when SR was first introduced. --Rocket Laser Man (talk) 18:17, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you with certainty that the modern concert sound system of people still refers to the concert speakers as "PA" in casual conversation. In particular, the loudspeakers aimed at the audience are often called "PA" or "main". Binksternet (talk) 15:07, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

There has been some discussion recently how to set up Public address and Sound reinforcement articles. Send any additional comments to Talk: Public address # Merge revisited. --Kvng (talk) 05:18, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

embedded AES/EBU time code

Help is needed on the AES/EBU embedded time code article, which is to be deleted, and I am now suggesting to join the AES3 article. However, the reference I found for embedding this time code (Ratcliff) seems to conflict with the information currently provided in the AES3 article for the use of the same bit in the channel status word. Can anyone dig an authoritative reference for this? - The Anome (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

5.1, 7.1

FYI, there is a request for removal on the 8 channel audio associated with the new 5.1 article that might interest you. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Overlapping articles

There seems to be an unnecessary overlap between the recording audio recordings of Reel-to-reel, the tape recorder and the recording of magnetic tape sounds. I think this might be the best place to discuss plans to better organize this material. --Kvng (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Additive synthesis

There is a dispute in Talk: Additive_synthesis on whether the sinusoidal definition (3) should be treated as the main definition in the article, and a third opinion will be accepted. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Professional sound production articles have been selected for the Wikipedia release 0.8

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB keys, DVDs and mobile phones. Articles are selected based on assessed importance and quality, then article version (revisionID) is selected for trust (free from vandalism) using the adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the professional voice production articles and revisions of the IDs we have selected. The selected article is marked with a diamond symbol (?) To the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have incorrectly entered or removed the article, please contact us at Wikipedia: Version 0.8 with details. You may want to look at your WikiProject article with a cleanup tag and try to improve anything that needs to be fixed; if you do, please give us a new revisionID at the Wikipedia talk: Version 0.8. We want to complete this consultation period at midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly simplified the process since the release of Version 0.7, so we aim to have a collection that is ready to be distributed by the end of October 2010. As a result, we plan to distribute the wider collection, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools expanding the reach of Wikipedia around the world. Please help us, with your WikiProject feedback!

For the editorial team of Wikipedia 1.0, SelectionBot 23:30, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Importance of article

Why is there no ability in the project template to assess the importance of the article? --Kvng (talk) 14:55, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

It would be very trivial to add this to the template. If you like, I can add it (assuming no objections). However, there may have to be some sort of bare-bones standard when sorting articles by importance (ie a common way of determining what makes a voice production article more important than others). Snotty ^babbling 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, there is a small task to assess the importance of nearly 600 articles... Snotty Wong ^gab 06:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ive added the draft importance scale to the scoring page. --Kvng (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are more than 100 articles rated higher than start class . I will begin to rank importance with those whose quality is declining. The rating of interest is used to help decide what is included in the Wikipedia edition - see the previous section. --Kvng (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Template updated. Start working! Snotty Wong ^bargaining 17:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User Ease Rewind Function: Analog versus Digital

In all topics, I can not find one that discusses it from a USER perspective. Mainly, I bought a digital recorder, but you can not rewind the digital recorder. For users who used to stop, replay and repeat what dictated, this does not work with Olympus digital. I was told you had to create a bookmark. Is there a way to use a digital recorder in the same way as a tape recorder where I can rewind and re-dictate my last sentence every time I feel like that, which is quite easy to do? This is one of the weaknesses that I see, but maybe I do not know how to use a digital recorder to do the same thing. - Unmarked comments previously added by 98.182.29.116 (talk) 23:04, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

It depends on digital media. For example, DAT (Digital Audio Ribbon), ADAT (Digital on Super VHS), DASH (digital on reel to reel tape), or any other format that uses recording to record digital PCM information will back off, such as an analog tape recorder. However, if your digital unit stores information on your hard drive, flash drive, or other non-recording destination, you may not be able to rewind in the same way. Regardless, you should be able to go back in time (via timeline or timer) and re-do the audio section. Heck, that's overdubbing. Hope this helps Greenshinobi (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Save Beta 58A?

I have nominated Shure Beta 58A article for removal. I browsed the web for something that would make this microphone more prominent and I became empty. I welcome anyone who can build the notation. Please comment on Wikipedia: Article for removal/Shure Beta 58A. Cheers to anyone who can store articles! Binksternet (talk) 16:10, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Why do not we fold the Beta 58A info under the SM58 article or the Beta Series or under SHURE? Greenshinobi (talk) 16:33, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

This AFD is withdrawn. No visible changes are required at this time. --Kvng (talk) 14:21, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

Replay Gain requested move

Please consider considering a proposal to move Replay Gain to ReplayGain. --Kvng (talk) 12:47, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

No commercial bias

It appears that this page is somewhat biased commercially against Cirrus Research as a manufacturer and it is used as a marketing tool. All images used are branded Cirrus so a mix of different maker images should be used, or blur each branding in the image used. - Unnamed comments added by TimTurney (talk o contribs) 08:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Which page? - | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:48, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Sound_level_meter, German level sound meter page, French sound level meter page - Unsigned comments yet to be added by TimTurney (talk o contribs) 13:05, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

The English page has only one image from the SPL Cirrus gauge, the German page has images of two different SPL Cirrus gauges, and the French page has images from Cirrus and B & K SPL meter. Of the three, the Germans are the only ones where Cirrus may be favored, but there is nothing in the text of these articles that benefits certain producers. It would not be appropriate to try to include images of each manufacturer's SPL meter. The pictures in the articles when they stand are just meant to be examples, and I believe the average reader will understand that. - | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:38, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

AMS Neve for AFD

I think it is a sad indicator of the absence of an expert in this field when an article for AMS Neve is prepared for AFD. I think to fight AFD, but what's the point? I can not keep this field alone and obviously there are not enough other people. What a shame. Manning (talk) 01:09, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Do not despair. It's not hard to turn around. You are not alone. --Kvng (talk) 14:19, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Neve deleted? That would be ridiculous. If someone deletes it, I will rewrite it. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Multiple boxes

Can someone change this article for a clear error or termination? Bearian (talk) 21:36, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Will be done. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Confused the SLM description or am I confused?

Below the SLM page, the 'exponential average sound level meter' is described, which from my understanding is the same mathematical description as that of Leq (or LAT) (ie the acoustic acoustic pressure squared and averaged over the period

Source of the article : Wikipedia